Appellate Court Ordered Apportionment to Limit Fee Award to Those Incurred Solely to the Section 7107 Claim, Meaning $3.85 Million Fee Recovery Went POOF! For Now. In FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School Dist., Case No. B238618 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 27, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion published), school district and its […]
Contractual Basis Was There, And No Apportionment Required Under the Facts. The long-standing battle between Mr. Fleming and Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) has finally ended, we think, in Fleming v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., Case No. G048523 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2015) (unpublished). This concerned Mr. Fleming’s involvement
One Reversal Involved A Non-Class Action Percentage Of Recovery Methodology Found Flawed By The Appellate Court, So Apportionment Re-Do On One Issue Was Ordered. Paletz v. Adaya, Case No. B247184 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 29, 2014) (unpublished) involved bad facts, resulting in a substantial jury verdict and substantial fees, most of which
Bank’s Failure to Contest Fee Entitlement Meant Only Amount of Fees At Issue—With Reasonableness And Apportionment Issues Left to Trial Court Discretion. California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, Case No. E053187 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a construction lender liability case with fairly draconian facts
$425,000 Fee Request Plus 1.5 Multiplier Nixed on Appeal. In Holquin v. Dish Network LLC, Case No. D059983 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 22, 2014) (published), plaintiffs won a combined economic/noneconomic verdict against DISH Network and others in a satellite T.V. dispute. However, the rub was an attorney’s fees clause in the Residential
Allocation, Nonsignatory, and Unsuccessful Work Arguments Rejected. In Cal-Murphy, LLC v. Hines Interests Limited Partnership, Case Nos. A137609/A139772 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), non-prevailing parties appealed some adverse fee rulings, which aggregated about $1.6 million. With a very slight modification, the orders were sustained on appeal. Non-prevailing plaintiffs were
30% Reduction of Fee and Costs Request Deemed Reasonable. In Villafana v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B246866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2014) (unpublished), civil rights plaintiff bringing FEHA/federal civil rights/California Family Rights Act/public policy violation claims lost a summary judgment to L.A. County based on the statute of limitations
Complaint Prayer Gave Notice, But Fee Amount “Re-do” Necessary on Remand. In Lawson-Hawks Ins., Inc. v. McVey Ins. Broker, Inc., Case No. H038466 (6th Dist. July 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff sued four defendants (an insurance agency, an insurance brokerage company, and certain agents) for willful violation of trade secrets. Plaintiff obtained a default
Silence in the Record as to Apportionment Required Remand. The Third District in Painter v. Francis Realty, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Case No. C073864 (3d Dist. June 23, 2014) (unpublished) considered a situation where a borrower under a promissory note/deed of trust brought multiple causes of action against creditor. The problem was that
Fee Award Did Not Have To Be Proportional To $45,441 Jury Verdict Recovery. In Ochoa v. San Juan, Case Nos. A130993/A131051 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court considered the review of a $184,330.40 to two tenants under a tenant ordinance/ local proposition with prevailing party provisions even though
